Investing at the Racetrack

[AAcoolguy]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that "Handifast" has the PCR numbers incorporated in it. Search the "Handifast" threads and you can download the program for free.

[jasperson]

I bought his book Investing at the race track and used it several times at Golden Gate. I also wrote a program to calculate his ability times and if I still have it I will send it to you. I don't think I throwed it away but I haven't looked for it for years. I gave it a good trial as I remember and discontinued using it because I wasn't getting good results. I am allways looking for and angle that the average bear isn't using to try to increase profits. Also I bought Dr Z's book Beat the racetrack and program a calculate to compute place and show odds and that didn't work out either. I programmed brohamers pace calculations and discarded them also because they didn't work for me

[ranchwest]

The PCR numbers I'm calculating are not anywhere near those in Handifast.

[douglasw32]

Since you are doing it by hand can you tell me how close the ones in handifast come to ranking them in order.

like your top 3, is it our top 3 ?

it won't be the same, I took his concept not his calculations, since his way of moving up and down the class ladder I found difficult to program.

Instead I use a class calculation based on the winners speed figure.

I am very curious as to how close it comes at ranking them out the same.

[headhawg]

In calculating PCR "by the book" everyone's math will be the same. The discrepancy will be how is class defined as the final PCR rating is dependent on evaluating a horse's performance by the race class. I noticed that the raw ratings in Handifast had a very tight range and were smaller numbers than I would have expected. Because of that I compared them to a program that calculates PCR (Fast Fred Pro) and my own Formula View template that I created for Equisim. If I recall there were significant differences but I will have to recheck. I am sure that both FF Pro and my FV template also showed differences between them as well. I'll look into it again and post what I find.

[Triopstor]

Originally Posted by ranchwest

The PCR numbers I'm calculating are not anywhere near those in Handifast.

That's disturbing. They should be similar shouldn't they? In any case are the PCR numbers working well for you and the ones in Handifast?

Thank You.

[headhawg]

"Disturbing" is probably a bit extreme but the raw numbers are clearly different. Handifast does things that are not "logical" to most people but Doug has put some ratings together that -- to put it simply -- just work. Why do you think it can consistently come up with some of the high-priced horses that it does? Doug had done a lot of research into the ratings so there is definitely a method to his madness.

And if you don't like the way PCR is calculated then just give it a weight of zero.

[SilentRun]

Originally Posted by Triopstor

Hello,

I would like any update information of this topic.
And if anyone could supply a biography/dosier on pseudonym "William L. Scott" (Mr. Finley, dad of Scott Finley?)?

I remember that "William L. Scott" said there was a more advanced version tactic of determining Early "Pace" than the book "Investing at the Racetrack".

Thank You.

I have his book "How Will Your Horse Run Today"
He was a lawyer who won cases in the US Supreme Court.
As an author he wrote a prixe winning novel. All I know is
that in the preface he mentioned that he made energy adjustments
to his original, "Investing at the Racetrack" and that he suggests to
combine the concepts of the form cycle as described in "How Will
Your Horse Run Today" with the ability time ratings developed in
"Investing at the Race track"

Good Luck

[douglasw32]

Originally Posted by jfb

If you know a competent programmer, he/she should be able to create a program that does Scott's calculations. They are not that involved

Any downloaded pp file can provide your raw data.

Send me the details in a PM and I can try to knock off a simple report that does it.

I had the book three times now, the last copy is on a bench in tampa bay (well probably not anymore)

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by Triopstor

That's disturbing. They should be similar shouldn't they? In any case are the PCR numbers working well for you and the ones in Handifast?

Thank You.

I just think it is improper to call these numbers "PCR". While they may be useful, they are not at all like Scott's numbers.

I think Scott's work can be very useful, but you have to study it a lot and learn to use it. There's no black box straight out of the book(s).

I use BRIS Race Ratings to assign class in the PCR calculations.

[douglasw32]

I just think it is improper to call these numbers "PCR".

Think of MY PCR as having the definition "Performance Class Redux" the
rating I built is based on Scotts' Theory it takes a look at the class of the race the horse is in and where it was positionally against the other horses in the race early on and at the finish. And is only 1/3rd of the total picture the author wants you looking at anyhow. I ever menat for the term PCR to be misleading and posted many times that it is "Loosely Based" on the Performance Class Rating.

Or maybe one of the programmers can label it MyPR down the road. the 3 letters PCR was chosen for limitation on the number of letters to describe the column at the time.

[headhawg]

Originally Posted by ranchwest

I just think it is improper to call these numbers "PCR"... I use BRIS Race Ratings to assign class in the PCR calculations.

Unless you are using these to assign a class level of 1, 2, or 3 then your numbers aren't technically PCR ratings so maybe you shouldn't call them that either. The rating in Handifast has been explained and there has been no attempt to mislead the users. Anyone who knows what PCR is could clearly see that the raw ratings were not the same as those put forth by Scott.

And as Doug mentioned, the ranking of the horses might be more significant than the raw score differences anyway. The raw PCR ratings are difficult to interpret. For example, which is more meaningful -- 172, 130, 122, 90 or 300, 225, 130, 100? Truthfully, I don't know. Perhaps someone has researched top scores or the gaps in PCR ratings and has determined that there is a statistically significant difference at some point. I doubt that there is which would mean that rank is just as useful as raw score.

I haven't had the time to do the comparison that I mentioned previously but I'll get to it eventually. And if you're simply objecting to the use of the acronym "PCR" then your posts are becoming reminiscent of someone else's.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by headhawg

And as Doug mentioned, the ranking of the horses might be more significant than the raw score differences anyway. The raw PCR ratings are difficult to interpret.

I do it by rankings. I found it has some value at some tracks.

111 plays between OSA and WOX

No maidens
Over 8 furlongs
Top 2 PC horses
In my study/sample, the 2nd rank PC horse
did better than the first

WIN%
18.9%
ROI
65.5%

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by headhawg

Unless you are using these to assign a class level of 1, 2, or 3 then your numbers aren't technically PCR ratings so maybe you shouldn't call them that either. The rating in Handifast has been explained and there has been no attempt to mislead the users. Anyone who knows what PCR is could clearly see that the raw ratings were not the same as those put forth by Scott.

And as Doug mentioned, the ranking of the horses might be more significant than the raw score differences anyway. The raw PCR ratings are difficult to interpret. For example, which is more meaningful -- 172, 130, 122, 90 or 300, 225, 130, 100? Truthfully, I don't know. Perhaps someone has researched top scores or the gaps in PCR ratings and has determined that there is a statistically significant difference at some point. I doubt that there is which would mean that rank is just as useful as raw score.

I haven't had the time to do the comparison that I mentioned previously but I'll get to it eventually. And if you're simply objecting to the use of the acronym "PCR" then your posts are becoming reminiscent of someone else's.

Please refer back to my post. I clearly stated that I use BRIS race ratings to ASSIGN class in the PCR ratings. In other words, I use the 1-2-3, etc. as you reference from Scott's methodology.

You can call it a PCR or a COW or a CIA. I don't give a flip. Just keep in mind that right here in this thread someone mistook the "PCR" rating for Scott's PCR. That was my point. It is confusing -- and it wasn't me who fueled the confusion.

[ranchwest]

Originally Posted by hcap

I do it by rankings. I found it has some value at some tracks.

111 plays between OSA and WOX

No maidens
Over 8 furlongs
Top 2 PC horses
In my study/sample, the 2nd rank PC horse
did better than the first

WIN%
18.9%
ROI
65.5%

I'm not understanding. Were those percentages for the first ranked PCR horse or the second ranked?